[The following is a guest post from Cipher Mysteries commenter Behrooz: all I’ve done is reformat it slightly into WordPress/HTML markup. Enjoy! — NickP]
I have the good news that, following some clarifications just received yesterday, I am now allowed to share publicly the contents and quotations from the contents of the Lockyer vs. Lockyer divorce files that have been shared with me. The limitation is still in progress on sharing the actual files, per reasons that seem to be purely procedural, so nothing to be concerned about. Hopefully, if decision is made to share the actual files, I will.
Below I will share the basic summary of the contents, quoting where necessary. I will not be offering my own interpretations here (yet), but you will find page 17 of PDF-1 to be the most significant, as brief as it is. It can be interpreted in different ways, but I have concluded, based on a subtle point I will reveal later, that it means Dorothy Jean Lockyer had died by Nov. 3, 1955. Let us see who can first figure out what that subtle point I am referring to may be!
I would like to take this opportunity, for the sake of transparency of how this finding came about, and for the public record, to acknowledge the kind assistance of the Honorable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis of South Australia and his office by way of the Honorable Acting Chief Justice of South Australia Mark Livesey and his office, and also the patient assistance throughout many months of Mr. Todd Wierenga, Deputy Registrar, for their trust in making possible, in my view, the solution to a longstanding puzzle about the Somerton Man case recently, as far as the whereabouts of Dorothy Jean Robertson is concerned. My interpretation of the contents of the files are only mine, though, and none of the above listed should be regarded necessarily as having offered or holding similar interpretations.
I wish to remind all on this site and those readings, that we should never forget the significant contributions the above Justices and their offices, as well as those of the State of Victoria regarding the Webb vs. Webb divorce files have made in clarifying important aspects of recent developments in the Somerton Man case. They are entitled to our gratitude and appreciation, and recognition of their assistance in helping research on the Somerton Man case to progress on solid evidential grounds rather than in continued speculations.
I will first share the summaries of the files, and then the main letters exchanged that made the sharing of the files possible. It took a long while before the files were actually found (and finally paid for), but there were also lots of back and forth since the original letters shared, mainly due to my trying to encourage the contents to be publicly available to all. I am happy and grateful that sharing the contents for further research and discussion became possible.
Lockyer vs. Lockyer Divorce File(s) contents.
Note: I have been assured the files whose contents are summarized below constitute the entirety of what is available for the case, and that no separate affidavit had been filed, as it can also be readily inferred from the contents of the files themselves (paragraph 4, and no references at all to any affidavit therein).
PDF-1: 19 Pages (page numbers below refer to the pages of the PDF-1)
Page 1: Cover page: South Australia in the Supreme Court No. 474 of 1955: Between Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer, Plaintiff, and Dorothy Jean Lockyer, Defendant: Stamped April 13, 1955: KNOX & HARGRAVE, Ware Chambers, 112 King William Street, Adelaide, Solicitors for the plaintiff.
Page 2: “… To Dorothy Jean Lockyer of Bute in the State of South Australia.” She is commanded to appear in 8 days from the date off the notice re. suit action by “Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer of Bute”
Pages 3-4: “Statement of Claim”: [This particular form is not filled out and dated at the end, since it was supposed to be the statement to be used to serve to Dorothy Jean Lockyer. However, the same form was indeed served and signed in another place, see pages 7-8-9-10 and then again in PDF-2, which will be introduced later below]
1. “The plaintiff was lawfully married to the defendant (then Dorothy Jean Webb a divorced person) on the 22nd of December 1952 at the Methodist Parsonage Kadina in the State of South Australia”
2. Both domiciled in SA. Plaintiff originally domiciled in WA, but now in SA.
3. No children living and under 18.
4. No previous proceedings re. their marriage.
5. “The material fact upon which the plaintiff relies is that the defendant has been guilty of habitual cruelty to the plaintiff for a period of one year and upwards.”
6. Plaintiff claims an order of divorce from “the defendant Dorothy Jean Lockyer.”
7. “The plaintiff does not claim damages or costs.”
8. The plaintiff’s Solicitors are … (see above)
Page 5: Cover page: “Appearance.” Stamped April 26, 1955, from “L.T. Gun, Tattersalls Chambers, 14 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, Solicitor for the Defendant”
Page 6: “Enter an appearance for the abovenamed Defendant Dorothy Jean Lockyer to the Writ of Summons in this action, Dated this 26th day of April 1955. Signed by the solicitor listed on page 5.
Page 7: Cover page, “Writ” date (somewhat illegible) 20?? June, 1955. By Knox & Hargrave.
Page 8-9-10: These three pages are exactly the same as Pages 2-3-4 above, except that now it is signed and dated: “This writ was served by me at Bute on the defendant Dorothy Jean Lockyer on Thursday, the 14th, day of April 1955, Indorsed the 14th day of April 1955,” Signed (illegible, signed something like ER Pilkins, but not reliable reading), Address 304 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA.
Page 11: Cover page: Lockyer vs. Lockyer: “Associate’s Certificate,” dated, 30 August 1955, by Knox & Hargrave
Page 12: “Tuesday the 2nd day of August 1955 Mr. Justice Ross, I certify that this action was heard before the Honourable on 2.8.55 and occupied the time of the Court as follows: 2:19 – 2:55, and I further certify that his Honour did this day find the allegations in paras 1, 2, 5 of the claim (including domicile) proved and did pronounce an Order Nisi for divorce in favor of the Plaintiff. Order shortening period for 0/A (? Illegible, perhaps 0/17) to 3 months. Name (illegible in signature, something like Butler Vicon?) Associate. Undefended. Counsel for the Plaintiff We. E. Forster.
Page 13: “Order Nisi for Dissolution of Marriage,” Stamp date faded (but see next page), from Knox & Hargrave
Page 14: “… Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Ross, Tuesday, the 2nd day of August 1955. This action was heard on the 2nd day of August 1955. Mr. W.E. S. Forster being Counsel for plaintiff the defendant Having entered appearance but not further defending the action, The Court was satisfied that the parties to the marriage were domiciled in the State of South Australia and that the defendant had been guilty of habitual cruelty to the plaintiff for one year and upwards as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim AND THE COURT ORDERED: 1. That the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant Dorothy Jean Lockyer which was celebrated at the Methodist Parsonage at Kadina in the said State on the 22nd … be dissolved after the expiration of three calendar months from the date of this order upon application being made in that behalf and upon a Master or the Court being satisfied that the order should be made absolute.”
Page 15: Continued from Page 13, “This order nisi does not enable either party to the marriage to remarry. This order was filed by Knox & Hargrave …”
Page 16: “Request for Order Absolute” Stamped 3, Nov. 1955, from Knox & Hargrave …
Page 17: “I, Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer, the abovenamed plaintiff hereby request that an Order Absolute shall be issued in this action. To the best of my knowledge information and belief this action has not abated by reason of the death of the above-named defendant.” Dated the 3 day of November 1955 (signed by Lockyer), stamp dated 3, Nov. 1955.
Page 18: Cover page, “ORDER ABSOLUTE” for Dissolution of Marriage, stamp dates 4, Nov. 1955, from Knox & Hargrave … [This page is exactly the one already made public here]
Page 19: [This page is exactly the one already made public here so there is no point of retyping it here.]
PDF-2: 4 pages: [These pages are exactly the pages 7-8-9-10 above. They must be the exact pages served to Dorothy Jean Lockyer. So, nothing new in this pdf.]
——
Letters exchanged regarding the above (dates, later to earlier)
From: Mohammad Tamdgidi
Subject: Re: A Request Regarding the Somerton Man Case
Date: August 1, 2023 at 1:39:12 AM EDT
To: “CAA:PM Supreme Court Livesey J’s Chambers (CAA)”Cc: “*******.********@supcourt.vic.gov.au” , “CAA:PM Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Chambers (CAA)” , “Wierenga, Todd (CAA)”
Dear Ms. Kaylie Inglis and Deputy Registrar, Mr. Todd Wierenga,
I thank you for your reply and notification, and also sincerely appreciate the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Mark Livesey, for kindly agreeing to grant me access to the requested files on behalf of Chief Justice Chris Kourakis’s office.
I will be glad to pay the fees, so would like to hereby kindly request from Deputy Registrar, Mr. Todd Wierenga, to contact me via my same email address in order to organize the inspection and/or access to the material following my payment of the fees.
Being unfamiliar with the fee category and the amount after visiting the linked site you provided, I will just await further details from Mr. Wierenga so that I can fill out any forms needed and process the fee payment.
I appreciate again your reply and would like to thank Ms. Sharokine Haddad (copied) again for her assistance in this matter.
Looking forward,
Mohammad H. (Behrooz) Tamdgidi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology (ret.)
UMass Boston
Editor, Human Architecture
Research Director at OKCIR:
Omar Khayyam Center
for Integrative Research in Utopia,
Mysticism, and Science (Utopystics)
——
From: “CAA:PM Supreme Court Livesey J’s Chambers (CAA)”
Subject: FW: A Request Regarding the Somerton Man Case
Date: August 1, 2023 at 12:53:32 AM EDT
To: Mohammad Tamdgidi
Cc: *******.********@supcourt.vic.gov.au” , “CAA:PM Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Chambers (CAA)” , “Wierenga, Todd (CAA)” , “CAA:PM Supreme Court Livesey J’s Chambers (CAA)”
Dear Sir
I refer to your email to the Chief Justice dated 28 July 2023.
As the Chief Justice is currently overseas, this response was directed to the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Mark Livesey, who is the President of the Court of Appeal.
The Acting Chief Justice grants you permission to access the file upon payment of the relevant fees.
I invite you to contact the Deputy Registrar, Mr Todd Wierenga, who is copied into this email, to organise inspection and/or access to the material.
Information on applicable fees can be found on the Courts Administration Authority website CAA Home – CAA (courts.sa.gov.au).
Kind regards
Kaylie Inglis
Judicial Assistant to the Hon Justice Livesey
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of South Australia
1 Gouger Street, Adelaide SA 5000
E: *******.********@courts.sa.gov.au
P: +61 8 8204 0400
Chambers: *******.********@courts.sa.gov.au
——
From: Mohammad Tamdgidi
Sent: Friday, 28 July 2023 3:54 PM
To: CAA:PM Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Chambers (CAA)
Cc: *******.********@supcourt.vic.gov.au
Subject: A Request Regarding the Somerton Man Case
Friday, July 28, 2023
The Honorable Chris Kourakis, Chief Justice of South Australia
Courts Administration Authority of South Australia
The Honorable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis,
My name is Mohammad H. Tamdgidi, Ph.D. I am a sociologist residing in the United States, having been previously an associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Boston, and being presently an independent scholar, author, and director of OKCIR: Omar Khayyam Center for Integrative Research.
I have recently been conducting research on the Somerton Man case in Australia, having authored “Tamám Shud: How the Somerton Man’s Last Dance for a Lasting Life Was Decoded — Omar Khayyam Center Research Report” (Okcir Press, 2021, see …etc and an updated blog report recently, titled: “Doubting the New Somerton Man Findings: Do 0.01% Error Chances Actually Matter in Science?”.
As you are aware, significant progress has been made recently (subject still to official evaluation) regarding the possible identification of the Somerton Man as Carl (Charles or Charlie) Webb, who had been in later years of his life married to Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Webb. In Oct. 2022, I contacted the offices of the Honorable Chief Justice Ferguson of Victoria, regarding the possibility of release to the public of all the divorce files related to the filing of Dorothy Jean Webb in 1952. Prior to that only second-hand knowledge had been made available about her divorce application. However, Chief Justice Ferguson and her offices with the kind assistance of Ms. Sharokine Haddad, Deputy Registrar, who is copied to this email, graciously released to me (for public release, which was done) all of the Webb vs. Webb divorce application files, significantly aiding research on what transpired in the last years of Carl Webb’s life. I immediately posted them at my research center website and shared them with other researchers at the time. For your information, the files are available here https://www.okcir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Webb-v-Webb-divorce-file_.pdf and here https://www.okcir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Dorothy-Webb-Affidavit.pdf.
Recently I contacted the offices of Chief Justice Ferguson again, regarding a new development in the case, involving a divorce file application filed by Mr. Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer against Mrs. Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Lockyer, just a few years following her divorce application against Carl Webb. In this second divorce file, to the brief extent already available publicly here https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/GFMQ-H4B/dorothy-jean-robertson-1920-1990 she is herself accused of “habitual cruelty” as grounds for divorce, copies of which I attach to this letter. I was again kindly helped by the Chief Justice Ferguson’s office by being directed to a site to file for release of the files. I did apply, however, it resulted in failure due to the fact that I was filing the request in the wrong state, and should have instead filed it in South Australia, where the divorce application had been filed. Also it has become known to me that the divorce application Lockyer vs. Lockyer, closed in 1955, falls in the 100 year restriction period following closure as observed by the courts in South Australia for release of public records.
By way of this emailed letter, I am appealing to your office to kindly consider the possibility of authorizing the release for research purposes—in the interest of fairness to all divorce parties, their descendants, researchers, and an international interested public at large—all the filed papers and documents related to the divorce application concluded in 1955 by Mr. Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer against Mrs. Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Lockyer in South Australia.
Although the basic conclusion of the application’s closure has been released to the public, the knowledge of the details of the case can offer a more balanced view of the broader Somerton Man case, and the relation of Dorothy Jean Robertson with Carl Webb, since behavioral issues that affected the divorce application on her part could be also relevant to what transpired in her subsequent marriage to and divorce from Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer.
As shown in the cover page of the application attached, I think the case file number is 474 of 1955, South Australia’s Supreme Court, Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer (Plaintiff) and Dorothy Jean Lockyer (Defendant). The decision was granted, apparently without Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Lockyer’s contesting the charges of her “habitual cruelty” on Thursday, Nov. 3, 1955. They had been married on Dec. 22, 1952, and there are records indicating that they had had a stillborn child in 1951, whose hospital records have also been publicly released. The problem that is outstanding is that the details of the divorce has not been released, so I am requesting your offices to kindly consider releasing the rest of the file to the public now, rather than delaying such a possibility due to the 100 year rule. Dorothy Jean Robertson (b. 1920) is not known to have had any children, and her whereabout subsequent to her divorce from Lockyer is unknown. Her family have reported that she died sometime in the 1990s (see https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/GFMQ-H4B/dorothy-jean-robertson-1920-1990). Lockyer (b. 1918) died in 1976 (https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LVZS-5QC/geoffrey-arthur-lockyer-1918-1976). They had a stillborn child in 1951, and no other children.
The reason for this urgency is that, given the new findings reported in the Somerton Man case, and the release of helpful information about his troubled marriage to Dorothy Jean Robertson, judgments are being made about both Carl Webb’s and Dorothy Jean Robertson’s character and behavior in married life. It would be rather impractical and unreasonable for the public, both in Australia and worldwide interested in the case, to await another 30+ years to know more about what transpired in Dorothy Jean Robertson’s marriage to Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer, especially of what the charges of “habitual cruelty” on her part actually consisted. Knowledge of the details can provide a more balanced and even ground in fairness for judging Carl Webb’s life and death as well.
A problem that has gripped research in the Somerton Man case has been the lack of balanced accessibility of information in a fair way to all those concerned and researching the case. Some have had more access than others, and have proceeded to make and share often rushed judgments about the Somerton Man and the case, without offering the same information to others in a transparent way so that all can objectively draw their own conclusions. Your kind consideration and assistance in releasing the material to the public, whether by way of responding to my request or independently, will greatly aid research in the case. I cannot thank enough Chief Justice Ferguson’s offices for their release of the earlier divorce case files, significantly aiding researches and broader public in Australia and worldwide in understanding what transpired back then. I only wish to bring to your attention that your kind consideration of taking a similar action in this second closely related divorce case can also significantly advance research on this matter.
As a sociologist advancing the sociological imagination, which suggests social life can best be understood by way of exploring how personal troubles and public issues interrelate, I became interested in the Somerton Man case recently because it offers important lessons for understanding our lives in a social context. Personally, I also became interested because I thought I could help others find their lost relatives in this case. My wife … happens to be an infant adoptee from Greece, her birth and orphanage name having been … , who tried to find her birth mother when she grew up and in fact succeeded in finding … living in a mountain village decades ago, when I also had a chance also to meet her kind person. The finding greatly inspired and still inspires me. I was attracted to the Somerton Man case, because I thought perhaps I could also contribute to others finding their relatives surrounding the case.
It seems that much progress has been made in the Somerton Man case recently, though I also prefer to await official reports and evaluations about the recent findings. However, unfortunately, rush to judgments may lead to a one-sided evaluation of the Somerton Man’s character, since the accusations Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Webb made in her divorce application against him could not be countered given he had died in 1948. It would be unfair that after seven decades and his body’s exhumation, he is put back to rest without having made a balanced and fair judgment about his life and death. In her filing, Dorothy Jean Robertson said nothing at all, nothing, about the losses he had endured in his family at the time due to his parents’ death due to old age or his brother and nephew’s death in WWII, a lack of empathy that failed to adequately explain why his mental and physical health were deteriorating so rapidly amid a failing marriage, leading to suicide attempts. The lack of empathy of even mentioning such losses was telling perhaps also of the dynamics of their relationship during the failed marriage. She was accusing Carl Webb of behavioral cruelty for all practical purpose, yet she herself became accused of the same in a second marriage/divorce not long after her first divorce filing. Habits are not formed overnight. It would be unfair to Carl Webb (or even to her given the charges made against her), already being judged based on Robertson’s one-sided divorce filing, for the details of the second divorce filed against her by Lockyer are not released for another 30+ years.
Therefore, I respectfully ask your honorable office to consider this request for public disclosure of the complete divorce filings of Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer against Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Lockyer, granted in 1955. If doing this, as a one-time action, requires someone to pay for fees, I would be glad to pay any reasonable fees to do so, as directed. I already paid a fee for this matter recently, but unfortunately it was directed to the wrong state in Australia. I attach a copy of the application I filed and the letter I received as a result of that filing. I would be glad to pay any fees again, if necessary. In that case, I would honor any decision regarding the extent of the release, whether it would be only to me for research purposes, or to make it accessible freely to the public, as I did with the Webb vs. Webb divorce files, kindly released by the offices of the Chief Justice Ferguson. I am copying Ms. Haddad to this email, so that she learns also of the result of my recent inquiry. I thank her again for her kind assistance previously in directing me to others to apply for the files, and for letting me know that I could make a request again regarding this matter, if and when needed. It was my mistake in filing the recent request in the wrong state—an error that is due to my unfamiliarity with Australia, and not a result of any error on others’ part.
The Honorable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis,
Given the limited information available, timely public access to the actual records is important for proper and truthful research and understanding of what transpired in this long unsolved case in Australia, and in the interest of fairness to both parties of the divorce Geoffrey Arthur Lockyer and Dorothy Jean (Robertson) Lockyer, and by implication the life and death of Carl (Charles) Webb (likely) aka the Somerton Man, all their descendants (dead or living), and independent researchers.
I greatly appreciate your time in reading this letter and in your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Mohammad H. (Behrooz) Tamdgidi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology (ret.)
UMass Boston
Editor, Human Architecture
Research Director at OKCIR:
Omar Khayyam Center
for Integrative Research in Utopia,
Mysticism, and Science (Utopystics)
Home
